Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?

Abstract

Globally, ethics reviews exhibit four significant flaws: (1) they transpose institutional fears of liability onto individual researchers; (2) they presuppose a universal ethical standard; (3) they create conflicts among formal requirements, academic freedom and respect for local ethics; and (4) they deny agency to informants. The author has nearly a half‐century of research experience in a Cretan mountain community that was often at odds with officialdom. This exemplifies the kind of research and social engagement now increasingly unfeasible because rigid ethical review procedures ignore local values. Anthropologists are subject to more restrictive rules than journalists, despite the discipline’s greater attention to local values, practices (including language) and concerns. The article ends with a call for global action to protect anthropology’s commitment to respecting cultural diversity, especially as it appears in the form of local (and sometimes labile) ethics.

Fieldwork? Better not: Ethics bureaucracy in Eastern Europe

“…Bell suggests that anthropology should take a principled stance against the informed consent doctrine because it 'is not an appropriate standard within which to judge ethnographic fieldwork' (2014: 4). Many researchers have argued that the concept of informed consent serves to minimize anthropologists' responsibility to their participants (Herzfeld 2023;Wax 1995).…”

“…The increasing formalization of regulations regarding fieldwork has, since the 1990s, provoked many critical voices within anthropology (Bell 2014;Herzfeld 2023;Lederman 2006). Anthropologists have always been aware of the specificity of their method and have experienced unease about how to make it conform to the general ethical requirements of the social sciences.…”

Anonymizing in digitalized fieldwork: An art‐based blurring approach

“…While there has been an increase in guidelines addressing qualitative research and GDPR compliance within the European digital sphere (Herzfeld 2023;Yuill 2018), the procedural landscape of handling digital images and protecting identities remains under development (Góralska 2020). This article delves into my innovative exploration of an art-based approach during fieldwork among a culturally diverse Norwegian populace, sharing reflections on navigating challenges arising from conducting research on sensitive topics via social media and the inclusion of third parties.…”

Surviving in an age of transparency: Emancipatory transparency‐making in food governance in Italy

“…Correcting the normative approach of both mainstream political science and policymakers, research on "audit cultures" analyzes how policies of transparency objectify many contingent aspects of institutional life. These analyses draw often on experiences in the UK higher education system or similar institutional contexts (Herzfeld, 2023;Merry, 2011;Shore and Wright, 2015;Shore, Wright, and Però, 2011;Strathern, 2000a). Similar to what often happens with food certifications, Barnett and Camfield (2016) highlight how audit and evaluation measures are still effective, even if people do not believe in them.…”